Back

Free-Living Amoeba act as transient permissive hosts for Leptospira spp.

Luga, A.; Inizan, C.; Meunier, E.; Albon, A.; Burtet-Sarramegna, V.; Picardeau, M.; Goarant, C.; Thibeaux, R.

2026-03-16 microbiology
10.64898/2026.03.16.712017 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundLeptospirosis is a zoonotic disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira spp., which persist in soil and water environments for extended periods of time. The mechanisms enabling this environmental survival remain elusive. Free-living amoebae (FLA) are widespread protozoa that act as reservoirs or "Trojan horses" for numerous bacterial pathogens, protecting them from stress and contributing to their persistence. Whether pathogenic Leptospira exploit similar interactions with FLA has not been resolved. Methodology/Principal FindingsUsing live confocal microscopy, flow cytometry, and gentamicin protection assays, we investigated the interactions between pathogenic (Leptospira interrogans) and saprophytic (Leptospira biflexa) leptospires with three FLA species: Acanthamoeba castellanii, Dictyostelium discoideum, and Hartmannella vermiformis. While rapid internalization was observed, entry was only partially dependent on actin-driven processes and was enhanced by the presence of live bacteria. Following internalization, bacteria persisted for at least 48h as indicated by colony-forming assays. However, no evidence of intracellular replication was detected. The number of fluorescently labeled leptospires progressively declined over time, providing further evidence of leptospires survival without multiplication. Finally, analysis of environmental soils in New Caledonia showed co-occurrence of FLA and Leptospira. Soil-derived FLA also internalized pathogenic Leptospira in vitro, showing that these interactions extend to natural isolates. Conclusions/SignificanceOur results demonstrate that free-living amoebae internalize both pathogenic and saprophytic leptospires and allow their transient persistence without replication. By providing protection and prolonging viability in soil environments, FLA may contribute to the ecological maintenance of Leptospira. These findings pinpoint FLA as potential environmental reservoirs that could play a role in shaping leptospires survival strategies relevant for transmission and host infection. Author SummaryFor bacteria living in soils and freshwater environments, survival depends on their ability to adapt to complex ecological landscapes populated by numerous predators and competitors. In such habitats, interactions with other microorganisms are unavoidable and may shape long-term survival strategies. Pathogenic Leptospira, the bacteria responsible for leptospirosis, can persist for long periods outside their hosts, yet the ecological mechanisms supporting this environmental survival remain poorly understood. In soil and freshwater ecosystems, microscopic predators known as free-living amoebae commonly feed on bacteria. However, several bacterial pathogens can survive inside these amoebae and use them as temporary shelters. Because ancestral Leptospira were soil-dwelling saprophytes, interactions with amoebae likely represent an ancient ecological relationship in which successful survival strategies may have evolved and remain conserved in present-day pathogenic species. With this perspective in mind, we used microscopy approaches and bacterial viability assays to investigate whether Leptospira interacts with amoebae. We found that several amoeba species rapidly engulf both pathogenic and non-pathogenic Leptospira. Once internalized, the bacteria remained viable for up to two days but did not multiply. We also detected both amoebae and Leptospira in the same soil samples and showed that environmental amoebae could internalize the bacteria. These findings suggest that amoebae may act as temporary shelters for Leptospira, helping them persist in soils and water and potentially contributing to the environmental stage of leptospirosis transmission.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.5%
2
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
7.2%
3
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.9%
4
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.9%
5
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.3%
6
Pathogens
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
PLOS Pathogens
721 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.6%
8
Environmental Microbiology Reports
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.6%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 50%
2.1%
11
Microbiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
12
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
13
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
16
The ISME Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
18
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
19
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
20
ISME Communications
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
21
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
22
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
23
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
24
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
25
Molecular Microbiology
66 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
26
Microbiome
139 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
27
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
28
Infection and Immunity
103 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
29
Animal Microbiome
26 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
30
Journal of Virology
456 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%